Subject: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-wu-l3sm-rfc8049bis-07

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 09:51:04 -0400

Hello,

I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft.
The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related
drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and
sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide
assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing
Directorate, please see
​http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir

Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it
would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF
Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through
discussion or by updating the draft.

Document: draft-wu-l3sm-rfc8049bis-07
Reviewer: Lou Berger
Review Date: Oct 13 2017
IETF LC End Date: date-if-known
Intended Status: Standards Track

Summary:

I have some major concerns about this document that I think should be
resolved before publication.

Comments:

This document is intended to provide a technical correction to the
syntactic flaws of the ietf-l3vpn-svc yang module defined in RFC 8049.
The changes are straightforward and have been cleared by the YANG Doctor
team with the one exception as discussed below.

Major Issues:

>From a strict reading of this document and the YANG Language definition
(RFC6020 or RFC7950) this document violates the MUST clauses in
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7950#section-11 insofar as that
rfc8049bis has several definitions that are not compatible with those
defined in rfc8049 for the ietf-l3vpn-svc yang module, yet the bis does
not follow the requirement of RFC7950 to change the module
name/identifier. In discussion on the netmod WG list, the point has been
raised that this is acceptable as the module defined in rfc8049 should
never have been published in the first place as it is syntactically broken.

So there is a choice to be made, i.e., to either:

(a) publish this document as is and note a special exception to the
requirement of RFC7950 (an IETF consensus document), or

(b) update/change the module identifier in this document to conform with
RFC7950.

I think who makes this decision is an IETF process call and I deffer to
the IESG on this matter.

Lou
(as RtgDir reviewer, who also happens to co-chair the WG that has
technical responsibility for rfc7950.)

---

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2017 09:05:30 +0200

Hi Lou,

Thanks for initiating this discussion on the YANG doctors and on the 
NETMOD mailing list.
The authors have produced v7 to address this comment.
I replied to the IETF LC message on this very specific topic, giving one 
week for feedback.
I can't point you to the archive, as my message awaits moderator 
approval (not sure why).
So here a cut/paste:

    Dear all,

    Based on the feedback received, the authors produced version 7.
    I would like to highlight those two changes (the only two changes btw).
    In the abstract:

        This document obsoletesRFC 8049 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8049>  to replace the unimplementable
        module in that RFC with a new module with the same name that is not
        backward compatible.  The changes are a series of small fixes to the
        YANG module, and some clarifications to the text.

    In section 1:

            The YANG module described in [RFC8049 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8049>] cannot be implemented because
            of issues around the use of XPATH.  This document obsoletes [RFC8049 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8049>]
            by creating a new module with the same name that is not backward
            compatible (in the sense described in YANG 1.1 [RFC7950 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7950>]).  The
            changes (listed in full inSection 1.4
        <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wu-l3sm-rfc8049bis-07#section-1.4>) are small in scope, but
            include fixes to the module to make it possible to implement.

    Changes are highlighted here:
    https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-wu-l3sm-rfc8049bis-07.txt
    Since RFC8049 is not implementable and therefore not implemented,
    keeping the same YANG module name seems about right.
    I'll collect feedback for a week. Note that this draft is on the
    IESG telechat on Oct 26th.

    Regards, Benoit

If a follow up is required, I propose that we use a single public email 
thread: the [email-masked]

Regards, Benoit
> .